NCLAT Upholds NCLT’s Order to Return Resolution Plan to CoC as Appellant-SRA Agreed to Reconsider the Matter
- News|Blog|Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 28 June, 2024
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: Noble Marine Metals Co WLL v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. - [2024] 163 taxmann.com 727 (NCLAT-New Delhi)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson & Shreesha Merla, Technical Member
- Avinash Bhati, Aditya Pandey, Prasook Jain & Ms Kshirja Agarwal, Advs. for the Appellant.
- Arvind Nayar, Sr. Adv., Amit Mahaliyan, Akshay Joshi, Bishwajit Dubey, Ms Srideepa Bhattacharya, Ms Aishwarya Gupta & Ms Shubhangi Agarwal, Advs. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against the corporate debtor. The appellant submitted a resolution plan, which was approved by the CoC. Meanwhile, financial creditors filed an application before the NCLT seeking to delete a clause in the resolution plan that provided for the release of promoters’ personal guarantees.
The NCLT, vide the impugned order, remitted the resolution plan back to the CoC for reconsideration. The appellant appealed before the NCLAT on the ground that since the NCLT had approved the resolution plan, it had no jurisdiction to send it back for reconsideration at the request of a financial creditor.
It was noted that the resolution applicant appeared before the NCLT and submitted that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) could reconsider the plan as per the wisdom of CoC members.
NCLAT Held
The NCLAT held that since the resolution applicant itself consented before the NCLT that the matter be sent back to the CoC for consideration, he could not have challenged the impugned order.
Further, the NCLAT held that the CoC, as per the impugned order, was to make a decision, and RP was to submit a modified resolution plan, if any, before the NCLT. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the NCLT was justified.
List of Cases Reviewed
-
- Udayraj Patwardhan v. Laxmi Vilash Bank [2024] 163 taxmann.com 726 (NCLT – New Delhi) [para 15] affirmed [See Annex]
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Sign Up
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
Latest Books
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
